Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 607

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Biomarker Modalities for Predicting Response to PD-1/PD-L1 Checkpoint Blockade: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Lu, Steve, Stein, Julie E., Rimm, David L., Wang, Daphne W., Bell, J. Michael, Johnson, Douglas B., Sosman, Jeffrey A., Schalper, Kurt A., Anders, Robert A., Wang, Hao, Hoyt, Clifford, Pardoll, Drew M., Danilova, Ludmila, Taube, Janis M.·2019·JAMA Oncology
DOI 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1549
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: PD-L1 (programmed cell death ligand 1) immunohistochemistry (IHC), tumor mutational burden (TMB), gene expression profiling (GEP), and multiplex immunohistochemistry/immunofluorescence (mIHC/IF) assays have been used to assess pretreatment tumor tissue to predict response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies. However, the relative diagnostic performance of these modalities has yet to be established. OBJECTIVE: To compare studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of PD-L1 IHC, TMB, GEP, and mIHC/IF in predicting response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A search of PubMed (from inception to June 2018) and 2013 to 2018 annual meeting abstracts from the American Association for Cancer Research, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology, and Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer was conducted to identify studies that examined the use of PD-L1 IHC, TMB, GEP, and mIHC/IF assays to determine objective response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. For PD-L1 IHC, only clinical trials that resulted in US Food and Drug Administration approval of indications for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 were included. Studies combining more than 1 modality were also included. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines were followed. Two reviewers independently extracted the clinical outcomes and test results for each individual study. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves; their associated area under the curve (AUC); and pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-) for each assay modality. RESULTS: Tumor specimens representing over 10 different solid tumor types in 8135 patients were assayed, and the results were correlated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 response. When each modality was evaluated with sROC curves, mIHC/IF had a significantly higher AUC (0.79) compared with PD-L1 IHC (AUC, 0.65, P < .001), GEP (AUC, 0.65, P = .003), and TMB (AUC, 0.69, P = .049). When multiple different modalities were combined such as PD-L1 IHC and/or GEP + TMB, the AUC drew nearer to that of mIHC/IF (0.74). All modalities demonstrated comparable NPV and LR-, whereas mIHC/IF demonstrated higher PPV (0.63) and LR+ (2.86) than the other approaches. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this meta-analysis, tumor mutational burden, PD-L1 IHC, and GEP demonstrated comparable AUCs in predicting response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment. Multiplex immunohistochemistry/IF and multimodality biomarker strategies appear to be associated with improved performance over PD-L1 IHC, TMB, or GEP alone. Further studies with mIHC/IF and composite approaches with a larger number of patients will be required to confirm these findings. Additional study is also required to determine the most predictive analyte combinations and to determine whether biomarker modality performance varies by tumor type.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1549

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 27 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Lu, S., Stein, J. E., Rimm, D. L., Wang, D. W., Bell, J. M., Johnson, D. B., Sosman, J. A., Schalper, K. A., Anders, R. A., Wang, H., Hoyt, C., Pardoll, D. M., Danilova, L., & Taube, J. M.
Venue
JAMA Oncology
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2019-08-01
Volume
5
Issue
8
Pages
1195
ISSN
2374-2437 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1549
OpenAlex
W2961686530
Cited by
607
References
27
FWCI
27.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.